Hotel Please

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by spelling out what the response contains (profile contents, price 'where known', booking links) and that a name may need a city qualifier to disambiguate. No auth, rate-limit or not-found behavior is disclosed, keeping it below a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the core purpose before the long content enumeration, and the trailing input guidance and examples are actionable rather than filler. The middle inventory of profile contents is a long run-on list, but each item earns its place by telling the agent what it can answer.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing the returned profile, and it covers the accepted input shapes and disambiguation. It leaves out failure/not-found behavior and whether results are cached or fuzzy-matched, which is a minor gap for a simple read tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description's guidance ('add the city when the name is common') largely restates the schema's own 'when the name alone could be several hotels'. The example queries give mild practical value but add little semantic content beyond the structured fields, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('full Hotel Please profile of one hotel') and enumerates the concrete contents of that profile (medals, rooms, pool, spa, gym, history, Michelin Keys, price, links). It also implicitly contrasts with search_hotels by accepting an id from it, so an agent can differentiate the two without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear triggering context ('tell me about Aman Kyoto', 'does the Park Hyatt Bangkok have a good pool') and names the accepted input forms including an id from search_hotels. It stops short of an explicit when-not rule or a directive to call search_hotels first for ambiguous names, but the routing intent is obvious.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.